Talk:John Grinder

Bandler

Bandler was acquitted of murder in 1988 in America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.206.96 (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Neither the fact that Bandler was charged with murder, nor the fact that he was acquitted, is currently mentioned in the Grinder article. I am not recommending that the material be added, just trying to make sense of the above lone comment on the Grinder talk page. It must refer to an earlier version of the article, and, of course, the article is about Grinder, and not Bandler. Hope this helps. 70.36.137.217 (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Grinder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930100723/http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/mlj/newsearchres.asp?contenttype=RR&topic=Theory%20AND%20Practice&searchtype=adv to http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/mlj/newsearchres.asp?contenttype=RR&topic=Theory%20AND%20Practice&searchtype=adv
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.psych.utah.edu/stat/dynamic_systems/Content/examples/E42_Manual/Steps-to-an-Ecology-of-Emergence_online-format.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Grinder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060311131921/http://www.psych.utah.edu/stat/dynamic_systems/Content/examples/Ecology-of-Emergence_Galley-proofs_Malloy-et-al.pdf to http://www.psych.utah.edu/stat/dynamic_systems/Content/examples/Ecology-of-Emergence_Galley-proofs_Malloy-et-al.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I’m puzzled why edits to elevate the mention of NLP being a pseudoscience are being reverted.

NLP is a pseudoscience, and surely that’s the most relevant point about it and its “creators” in the same way flying saucers are described on wiki as a “supposed type of flying aircraft”.

There’s no proof either exists. Ambitus (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No dispute that NLP is a pseudoscience and that is made very clear on the linked article. It is overkill to list it here and it could be seen as a personal attack. It is not necessary -----Snowded ^TALK 16:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

How can something be a personal attack if it's also true? NPOV says representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, which I believe it is. NLP cannot be verified, so as consequence verifiability is not an issue.

By comparison, David Wolfe is a living person and his pseudoscientific ideas are featured prominently in his biography on wiki. See https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/David_Wolfe_(raw_food_advocate) Ambitus (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Firstly Grinder is trying to distance himself from the more cult-like aspects of NLP but seems to be unwilling to surrender the name. Secondly the link to the main article makes the NLP = pseudo-science clear. I don't think there is any evidence that Grinder acted ion bad faith in the original creation. Applying the label here is then undue empahsis -----Snowded ^TALK 10:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Virginia Satir (on whose work NLP was based) was known to be unhappy with the way her work was repurposed for NLP. Ambitus (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Lots of people in that category - but not relevant to this article -----Snowded ^TALK 14:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I dispute there are lots of people - there are 3 in the origin of NLP, and as far as I’m aware only Virginia Satir worked with them directly. Ambitus (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

They took a lot of material from other sources and homogenised it into the NLP course. You don't have to work with them to be in that category -----Snowded ^TALK 06:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s not what the NLP article and Virginia Satir article say. Whatever. You appear to be trying to impose your own perspective, rather than having a balanced discussion about it. I’ll leave you to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambitus (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought the original discussion was if pseudoscience should be in the lede or not. I don't see a reply to my last comment on that but you opened up the misappropriation question which is ttangentialto the subject but I did you the courtsey of replying. Not sure why you reacted in that way - but hey this is wikipedia :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 08:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

While I completely agree with you to the fact that labeling Grinder as a "crank" in the article is, in fact, a personal attack.

I think that you are giving him more credit to what he really deserves. Rodrigo IB (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)